Thursday, September 9, 2010

Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? Michael Behe vs Stephen M. Barr

Here is a great debate: Michael Behe vs Stephen M. Barr over whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught as Science.

This is a great debate. I agreed with much of what Dr. Barr said, except that as scientist we don't have the luxury of just going after scientific fact without paying attention to philosophical ramification of those facts. You can't have one - and have a complete understanding of anything - without the other. Science is not reason. Science is based on reason and therefore philosophical presuppositions and biases are going to play a role in how facts are interpreted and conclusions drawn. Fortunately, Physics and Chemistry have dodged the problem of the meaning of it all because historically they are based more on th4e facts and the wonder of those fact than biology. I think it's because biological concepts such as Darwinism and genetics have always been applied to sociological sciences and policies from the start. People thought that if there was nothing or purpose behind why one species is favored for survival over another, why should people be exempt? If a person is smart or stronger why shouldn't that person have more right to exist than another?
These things don't seem to occur in Physics as much. I mean no one is talking about social physics. However meaning and purpose cannot be divorced from science. I mean just because you can build a weapon of mass destruction because you can does not mean you should. I'm noticing a trend in society, especially more in journalism and physics in which you don't just get the facts but you are also told how to interpret them and what to think...including in science text books. If we were going to stick to Dr. Barr's definition of science than he probably is right: Intelligent design should not be taught in schools...but then we should stop teaching that science point to atheism as well because it doesn't. This is not going to happen. Besides the universe shows all the reasonable signs for being designed. Barr is also right - it's dishonest to not agree that if there is an intelligent designer then you are talking about God and not just because the Bible says so. Because I am unabashedly saying God created the universe out of nothing. It's stupid to try to ex-God out of the laboratory. It's schizophrenic which is why I think that so many are deadset against intelligent design. It's easier to think that universe got here unguided because many of us want to be deluded enough to think that we are and should be unguided.  Think of the implication. If there is a God. We are all accountable to God.

Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science?
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment